The Civil and Canonical Rights of Roman Catholic Priests in Boston

-----Original Message-----
To: Vicar_General@rcab.org; archbishopsean@rcab.org; Beirne_Lovely@rcab.org
Sent: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 7:08 am
Subject: Meeting with Fr. *********

February 2, 2010

Fr. Richard Erikson
Vicar General, Moderator of the Curia
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston
66 Brooks Drive
Braintree, MA 02184

Dear Fr. Erikson:

Today, February 2, 2010, I accompanied Fr. *** to the Chancery where, as you know, he had been summoned to a meeting by Mr. Mark Dunderdale and Rev. Tom Foley from the Office of "Professional Standards and Oversight".

According to Fr. Foley, Cardinal O'Malley had instructed Mr. Dunderdale and Rev. Foley to "review the history" of Father's personnel file to "ask certain questions". Due to the strangeness of the request, and other meetings conducted with priests that ended in the demise, disappearances and incarcerations in lock-down facilities outside of constitutional, civil and canonical rights of the priests, several of Fr. ***'s supporters and advisers wanted a lay representative present.

Though Fr. **** released the diocese from any privacy violations my presence would compromise, Mr. Dunderdale explained to me I would not be permitted to attend because of privacy concerns as he intended to review Father's personnel file.

Hard to make sense out of this reasoning, in light of the fact the diocese had already publicly released Fr. ***'s personnel file (which I have repeatedly and intimately examined over the years) and the diocese telling the Boston Globe of the Cardinal's intentions to release names and addresses of "credibly accused" without any substantive or factual information. In fact, the accused is forbidden by the diocese to give out substantive factual information that would vindicate him. The diocese, even upon the request of a civilly and canonically vindicated priest, has thus far refused to permit the priest to release information pertaining to his innocence.

Concerns about protecting "privacy" are certainly moot.

I'm trying to understand what is happening to our priests' civil rights.

Can you help me to understand what this process is?

Imagine yourself an IT tech civilly employed, accused of sexual abuse by a complainant. Imagine those accusations investigated by the police, the DA and found to be incoherent, physically and factually impossible. Imagine the allegation being further investigated by your civil employer, vindicated and cleared to work. Imagine your employer a few years later, without any cause, dusting off the same old file with the same old allegation and asking you to go through another employee investigation to be cleared to work. Imagine being vindicated a second time.

Now, imagine the CEO of your IT company ten years later hiring a former District Attorney. Imagine yourself being summoned,, without cause, to the office of 'professional standards and oversight' where this former district attorney tells you he's been charged by the CEO (which in this case is the Cardinal) to "review your file history".

I can't think of a single precedent where an employer could withstand the scrutiny of civil and constitutional law in a free country.

Of course, it is quite possible, Catholic priests and the Catholic Church are no longer free in this country.

If the civil and constitutional rights of our priests and the Catholic Church have been stripped, this is not something that will be done under the cover of darkness and secrecy.

What is a former district attorney doing digging out old files out of the cobwebs and conducting inquisitions upon priests who have been vindicated?

Laity has a right to know because we have a right to send our sons and grandsons into vocations of Roman Catholic Church with all the freedoms every citizen enjoys.

Catholics can and should be prosecuted by civil law if warranted.

With all due respect to Mr. Dunderdale, the Cardinal doesn't have the authority to set up kangaroo inquisitions or incarcerate priests in lock down facilities outside of civil law. Nor are employers permitted to hire district attorneys to open up private investigations about civil matters that have been resolved.


I have had an extended conversation with Anne Barret Doyle of Bishops Accountability and expressed to her my ongoing concerns that the Cardinal has no process to determine the "credibility" of the complaint. We seem to have some agreement that the RCAB seems to have ignored civil and canonical laws at the whim of corporate need at any given moment as they perceived it. I raised objections to releasing names under the impression there were "credible" accusations against the (any) priest. "Credible" implies there was evidence to substantiate the accusation. It implies there was unbiased witness substantiation. It implies there was an investigation whereby a determination was made that there was enough evidence to determine the likelihood that the accuser's story most likely happened.


God Bless.

In Christ,

Carol McKinley





cc: Mr.Mark Dunderdale
"Professional Standards and Oversight"


***ADDENDUM

I wanted to assure everyone that Fr. X was represented by a spectacular Canon lawyer. And, though a civil lawyer was not part of this weeks kangaroo inquisition, rest assured everyone following Cardinal O'Malley is keenly aware his invitation to permit the government of the United States to be seated inside of a Chancery to indict, convict and incarcerate accused outside of civil and constitutional law has got to be vigorously opposed.

I don't think anyone opposes the diocese releasing names of "credibly accused".


The Cardinal bears the burden of defining "credibly accused".

"Credibly accused" doesn't include accusations where the police and/or the district attorney didn't find the accuser and/or their story "credible".

More later.